A challenge for evolution deniers: Explain why changes do not continue to add up over time

Please explain, with sources (not opinion pieces), why you cannot accept that single step speciation in the observed examples provided (like
the Wikipedia article on Saltation) are not sufficient evidence for you to accept that single step speciation occurs.

Wow. Somebody starred that. I hope they went to the page first, and read the indicated section with care.

I did. There were references to various instances of (claimed, but I'm happy to accept the claims) saltational events, like the appearance of
centipedes with extra body segments and the like, but as far as I could see only one example of single-event speciations — a whole class of them, I
grant you, but they're all the same thing: the appearance of polyploidy in hitherto diploid species, which renders the polyploids unable to mate with
their diploid forebears.

However, a lot of polyploid species are asexual, and many are the result of selective breeding by humans, and they are reproduced by artificial
cloning and suchlike. Polyploidy does occur in nature, and is poorly understood. As an example of speciation occurring within a single generation, I
don't think it really cuts the mustard.

Please explain, with sources (not opinion pieces), why you cannot accept that single step speciation in the observed examples provided (like
the Wikipedia article on Saltation) are not sufficient evidence for you to accept that single step speciation occurs.

Wow. Somebody starred that. I hope they went to the page first, and read the indicated section with care.

I did. There were references to various instances of (claimed, but I'm happy to accept the claims) saltational events, like the appearance of
centipedes with extra body segments and the like, but as far as I could see only one example of single-event speciations — a whole class of them, I
grant you, but they're all the same thing: the appearance of polyploidy in hitherto diploid species, which renders the polyploids unable to mate with
their diploid forebears.

However, a lot of polyploid species are asexual, and many are the result of selective breeding by humans, and they are reproduced by artificial
cloning and suchlike. Polyploidy does occur in nature, and is poorly understood. As an example of speciation occurring within a single generation, I
don't think it really cuts the mustard.

but you quite clearly and unambiguously stated that single step speciation did not happen.

Do I hear a retraction of that, very particular point, then?

Polyploidy is where there are more than a pair of chromosomes. It is most prevalent in plants but may potentially arise due to mutation and affect any
organism. It is not unknown in humans. Here's a link in Wikipedia on it.

Certainly not. Are you arguing that a child with Down's Syndrome isn't human?

You are apparently defining a species as a set of organisms able to produce fertile offspring through mating. This is acceptable, roughly, for
sexually reproducing species, but how do you define an asexually reproducing species? It is very difficult, and biologists argue about it.
There is no agreed definition. However, the existence of such a definition is
presupposed in the claim that polyploidy equals speciation. This is wrong. But since that Wikipedia article of yours is bad science about an outdated
theory, written by a creationist (as is evident from the talk page), I can't say I'm
surprised. Did you write it?

Genuine speciation has never been observed in a single generation — except, as I understand it, at the Institute for Creation Research.

Certainly not. Are you arguing that a child with Down's Syndrome isn't human?

You are apparently defining a species as a set of organisms able to produce fertile offspring through mating. This is acceptable, roughly, for
sexually reproducing species, but how do you define an asexually reproducing species? It is very difficult, and biologists argue about it.
There is no agreed definition. However, the existence of such a definition is
presupposed in the claim that polyploidy equals speciation. This is wrong. But since that Wikipedia article of yours is bad science about an outdated
theory, written by a creationist (as is evident from the talk page), I can't say
I'm surprised. Did you write it?

Genuine speciation has never been observed in a single generation — except, as I understand it, at the Institute for Creation Research.

I did not write the Wikipedia article, nor did I edit or contribute to it in any way. Not even slightly.

I am not associated with the Institute for Creation Research (or any other organization that specifically has an agenda to promote Creationism as
science). I do not recall reading any of their publications. I am not an American and doubt that I may even unknowingly have met someone associated
with that organization.

I am not a Biologist (although I have studied Biology and Medicine to above grade school standard). My primary educational background and forte is in
Astrophysics with leanings toward space-time physics and cosmology.

My best friend's wife is a geneticist, employed in that capacity, and we have had occasion a few times to discuss evolutionary biology. She is also a
Christian (of the born again, immersed in the Holy Spirit type). She was the one who initially suggested to me that everything that she does in the
lab, also occurs in nature yet is conspicuously absent as mechanism, from the modern evolutionary synthesis.

My observations and reasoning are my own. As such, I have to search out supportive information. One such 'found' source was the Wikipedia article on
Saltation.

In regards to the link to the discussion on the Saltation article, the posts suggesting an absence of citations and that the article is out of date
are, themselves somewhat out of date.

The majority of the posts in the talk section of the article make reference to Stephen Jay Gould's 2002 book, "The Structure of Evolutionary
Theory". But also makes specific reference to:

I did not write the Wikipedia article, nor did I edit or contribute to it in any way. Not even slightly.

All right, all right, it was just a joke. Besides, how would I know? You could be a famous biologist for all I know.

I am not associated with the Institute for Creation Research (or any other organization that specifically has an agenda to promote Creationism
as science). I do not recall reading any of their publications. I am not an American and doubt that I may even unknowingly have met someone associated
with that organization.

Never accused you of any of the above. My search for 'single-generation speciation' just brought up several ICR links, that's all.

Regarding the meat of your post, you will notice that nearly all the citations are of secondary sources, not original research. There are two
papers on fish, neither of which appear to be about speciation; the rest are reviews of the literature — reviews, mind, not metastudies or anything
that might be called research. Do you know what that suggests to me? It suggests that the author is not a professionally active biologist, and may not
indeed be a biologist at all.

Your inference then, that there was some connection, is evidentially a red herring.

I did not make such an inference, although I see how my words might be taken like that. My apologies for being insensitive.

Your attempt at character assassination by association, doubly so.

You'll have to point out the bit to me where I tried to assassinate your character. Which one do you usually go for? I like Mr Green, whom I think of
as an Edwardian clergyman; I think you might make a good Professor Plum, the brainy one.

If you are suggesting that my concept of speciation is wrong, then please provide a reference.

I'm suggesting your concept of evolution is incomplete and narrow based off of your comments thus far.

You’re ignoring that in general, the factors leading to all manners of speciation have not been adequately resolved and are
still up for debate. Your repeated stance in this thread has been that
"evolution (speciation)" happens in one main way- i.e. mutations (adaptations?), sorted by natural selection, adding up in a population enough to
cause reproductive isolation through new traits. This is basically phyletic gradualism, or evolution by
anagenesis, which is not thought to be as common (vs cladogenesis). Either way there is clearly
not a consensus on this. Or,
this.

It makes logical sense that there should first be a speciation event ( e.g. a natural barrier) that splits a population, along the lines of the
allopatric method. Mutations will happen, alleles may become fixed, but that
accomplishes very little in the face of a static environment, right? Only after a population has split, could mutations eventually lead to adaptations
that would further push the groups to diverge into incipient species, provided there is no migration or gene flow. Or at least this is one of the ways
speciation is believed to commonly occur.

I clearly defined speciation as new traits becoming dominant within a population that add up over time and change the organism enough so that
it can no longer reproduce with the originals.

You seem to be invoking a version sympatric speciation here, which relates to anagenetic speciation I mentioned above. Essentially it's speciation
within a single lineage rather than by branching off from a common ancestor. Researchers aren't too clear on how this type of speciation works, and
it's believed to be one of the least likely to occur among animals. More
so in plants perhaps.

This would clearly be speciation where 4 different traits combined together to cause enough change in the species that they can't reproduce with the
originals.

Is this your conclusion? Please excuse me for not accepting this claim out of context, and without proper citation. Perhaps linking a source to this
study so others can do proper due diligence would help here.

Accumulated mutations lead to the new traits. So saying that something is caused by reproductive isolation but not mutations is absurd because
the mutations are the cause of the new traits in the first place.

Your equating of reproductive isolation as occurring only after mutations have lead to new traits suggests an incomplete understanding of the
mechanisms. There are many ways it happens. It is my hope that you will at least read the links I've provided to see what the experts are saying. Or,
feel free to post your sources so we can compare notes.

And while we're on the topic of reproductive isolation, please read this interesting study:

Macroevolutionary speciation rates are decoupled from the evolution of intrinsic reproductive isolation in Drosophila and birds:
Rates of species diversification vary widely in the natural world, leading to profound differences in species richness among different kinds of
organisms. Variation in the rate at which new species arise is frequently assumed to result from factors that influence the rate at which populations
become reproductively isolated from each other. We tested this assumption in Drosophila flies and birds. Surprisingly, we find no evidence that the
propensity of organisms to evolve reproductive isolation predicts the rate at which they form new species over geological timescales. These results
suggest that factors that cause intrinsic reproductive isolation may play less of a role in explaining biological diversity than generally
assumed.

In short they compared several species of Drosophila and birds, and found the correlation between reproductive isolation and speciation seems to be
lacking. www.pnas.org...

Feel free to comment and link to sources that contribute in any meaningful way to this discussion.

[Speciation is] never a single event, just like with the bigger level changes (ie genus). They are accumulations of mutations and traits that
cause different enough appearance for scientists to classify them differently. Stop getting hung up on single events, and numbers like "thousands or
millions of generations"

It's what you're saying re: the causes of speciation that I'm getting caught up on. You're conflating the actual event with how divergence into
incipient species happens afterward.

According to the descriptions I've read, epicgenetics isn't about traits and genes being inherited.

To truly delve into Modern Evolutionary Synthesis you need to read BOOKS on the topic and research papers. You aren't going to find everything
in a single wikipedia link.

Fine. Link me to books you've read on the subject. I have read the papers. The MES needs to be extended to include all the new research that is
showing the impact of non-mendelian inheritance factors on expression of phenotypes. If it's happened then kindly link me to sources. The Wiki was
meant to show that nothing has changed.

I said that this thread is about mutations adding up over time, not the countless other factors that have already been discussed to death. You
seem to keep going all or nothing.

No no no. Let's get something clear. You said that evolution (speciation) is about mutations adding up. You've asked why evolution can't happen this
way. So it is you who has gone all or nothing on this one aspect.

It's to prove a point, I get it, but in doing so you've inadvertently constructed a straw man. Do you think it's possible to debate evolution by
honing in on just one mechanism, and isolating it from all the others, known and unknown? No, Im sorry. Can't be done.

Your personal dispute with the terminology of "the gene" vs "the gene sequence" doesn't matter in this regard and is dragging us even further off
topic.

Seems like hand waving to me. Not my personal dispute. You just made that up. Regardless, it's a convenient response considering we're talking about
genetic mutations, and a proper understanding of these terms would add some much needed credibility to the topic at hand.

But I guess your personal opinion based purely on the shock value of a change that big overrides decades of study.

It's not just that. It's that other experts have different opinions on it. I've read the material, have you?

It simply means that piecing together lineages through fossils is a rather speculative science, which leaves room for debate and alternative
interpretations. You would be hard pressed to deny this. I posted a link in a previous post highlighting this fact.

Natural selection is now guesswork? Really?

LMAO at assigning stories.

NS is nothing but probability distribution. A form of population dynamics. Assigning likely hoods that a trait may confer an advantage. How does one
decide this? Does the mere existence of a trait always mean it was selected for an advantage? What about variants
invisible to natural selection?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
You’re ignoring that in general, the factors leading to all manners of speciation have not been adequately resolved and are
still up for debate. Your repeated stance in this thread has been that
"evolution (speciation)" happens in one main way- i.e. mutations (adaptations?), sorted by natural selection, adding up in a population enough to
cause reproductive isolation through new traits.

This is basically phyletic gradualism, or evolution by anagenesis, which is not thought to be as
common (vs cladogenesis). Either way there is clearly not a consensus on
this. Or, this.

Look, I'm not saying that mutations adding up is the absolute only way it can happen. You keep getting stuck on absolutes. The example of speciation
I gave does indeed happen, and has been proven in a lab. This why it is the main example I have given. It is relevant to the main point I've been
trying to make, that mutations and traits DO add up and CAN lead to genetic incompatibility down the road. I'm trying to keep things simple here, but
all you are doing is bringing all kinds of other things into the conversation to make it more confusing to folks that might not understand it on that
level. They aren't really relevant or have identical meanings. I'm not saying that other factors couldn't be involved, I'm saying that the one I
have described has been proven via experiment. This part is NOT up for debate and is absolutely relevant to my main point.

Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual.[1] When evolution
occurs in this mode, it is usually by the steady transformation of a whole species into a new one (through a process called anagenesis). In
this view no clear line of demarcation exists between an ancestral species and a descendant species, unless splitting occurs. The theory is contrasted
with punctuated equilibrium.

Anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the evolution of species involving an entire population rather than a branching
event, as in cladogenesis. When enough mutations have occurred and become stable in a population so that it is significantly differentiated from an
ancestral population, a new species name may be assigned.

^Those are from the wiki you linked on anagenesis plus the one on phyletic gradualism.

Please explain how that is ANY different than what I described specification as? What you are doing is saying, "no, it's not nuclear fusion, it's is
a nuclear reaction where multiple atomic nuclei collide at an extremely fast speed causing them to form a new type of atomic nucleus, you noob!" I'm
not debating any of that! You are distracting people from the issue, plus you really have to do better than internet blog sites as sources.

You seem to be invoking a version sympatric speciation here, which relates to anagenetic speciation I mentioned above. Essentially it's
speciation within a single lineage rather than by branching off from a common ancestor. Researchers aren't too clear on how this type of speciation
works, and it's believed to be one of the least likely to occur among
animals. More so in plants perhaps.

Is this your conclusion? Please excuse me for not accepting this claim out of context, and without proper citation. Perhaps linking a source to
this study so others can do proper due diligence would help here.

Feel free to comment and link to sources that contribute in any meaningful way to this discussion.

This discussion is 75% red herrings and semantics. After all that, you have the nerve to suggest I am not contributing in any meaningful way to the
discussion? You still haven't answered my question, nor have you shown anything to counter anything related to the topic of the thread. Your main
argument has been that what I've said isn't the ONLY way it can happen, something I never claimed. That would be a straw man, no?

If you wish to discuss epigenetics, then you must show me how this conflicts with my premise of genetic mutations and natural selection, or how it
relates to genetic mutations adding up. The fact is, it DOESN'T. It adds on to our understanding and shows a different way it can potentially
happen, without genetic mutations. I admitted I wasn't an expert on the subject, and I guess I was wrong about inheritance, but it's a fairly new
field of study. Suggesting that it automatically overrides genetic mutations, natural selection, or speciation means nothing. It's the latest buzz
word for the evolution denier crowd, as they will latch onto ANYTHING that could show a different method of evolution. Let the science evolve.
Evolution has been worked on and studied for 150 years. Epigenetics is still new and still has a limited amount of evidence that isn't all fully
understood yet. It's disputable that it can even happen in mammals and it seems to be based on genetic markers rather than genetic mutations. Just
because this can happen, doesn't mean the mutations do not. Another red herring to add to the pile.

No no no. Let's get something clear. You said that evolution (speciation) is about mutations adding up. You've asked why evolution can't happen
this way. So it is you who has gone all or nothing on this one aspect.

This aspect is the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, so pardon me for wanting to discuss it rather than the countless red herrings you have posted. I am asking
about limitations on traits or mutations adding up, I'm not just saying, "Why doesn't it happen?" or "Give me other methods in which it can occur."

It's to prove a point, I get it, but in doing so you've inadvertently constructed a straw man. Do you think it's possible to debate evolution
by honing in on just one mechanism, and isolating it from all the others, known and unknown? No, Im sorry. Can't be done.

I have not constructed a straw man. That is absolutely false. This thread isn't for debating the whole of evolution. There are dozens of threads in
this section for that. It is specifically about the mutations and speciation, and asking why deniers impose a limit to how much change can occur
given numerous speciation events. If this is not what you'd like to discuss, then by all means, post in one of the other threads about epigenetics
and all that other stuff. Maybe make a new one to help us all understand epigenetics better. You have given me alternative ways that speciation can
happen, but you haven't disputed allopatric speciation, or addressed the question at hand. I really didn't think it was that complicated.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you
have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Seems like hand waving to me. Not my personal dispute. You just made that up. Regardless, it's a convenient response considering we're talking about
genetic mutations, and a proper understanding of these terms would add some much needed credibility to the topic at hand.

I made that up? You are the one that nitpicked whether it's a single gene or group of genes, and the terminology involved. It makes no difference at
all in the premise of this thread outlined in the OP. It is semantics, completely unrelated to traits emerging or speciation events.

It's not just that. It's that other experts have different opinions on it. I've read the material, have you?

It simply means that piecing together lineages through fossils is a rather speculative science, which leaves room for debate and alternative
interpretations. You would be hard pressed to deny this. I posted a link in a previous post highlighting this fact.

It's not speculative because the evidence for evolution is so conclusive. When the evidence across the board is THAT strong, you can draw connections
like that, because the validty of evolution isn't reliant completely on that ONE EXAMPLE. You mention the whale purely because you don't like the
account and feel land mammal to ocean mammal is unrealistic, but you haven't explained why or what this has to do with genetic mutations not
accumulating or limitations on how far they can go. You have only denied the account. If fish can become amphibians and slowly adapt to land, who's
to say that a mammal can't adapt to the water?

Can you explain why Dorudon still had remnants of hind legs? What purpose did they serve?

If you are disputing that these changes occurred via evolution you need an explanation for that as well as an alternate theory on the emergence of the
whale. Why do you feel that the slow transition from Maiacetus to Dorudon is unrealistic over 9 million years? Is there another transition in the
series that you don't agree with? That is by far the biggest transition and largest gap in the fossils, plus it took longer than ancient ape to
modern human. It sounds to me like you are just comparing the very beginning and the very end rather than looking at each transition individually,
but maybe you can break it down for me. In the future when they find more fossils in between those 2 will you still dispute it?

Can you explain how a trait can become dominant within a population without natural selection?

Genetic drift? Migration?

Migration? What exactly do you think causes animals to migrate? Change in the environment (seasonal change, temperature, food source change, new
competition, natural disasters, etc). Migration is a prime example of natural selection's influence. Genetic drift is still influenced by the
environment and if a new trait emerges in that fashion it would indeed be influenced by natural selection because it gives them an advantage which
leads to it becoming dominant. Otherwise it doesn't become dominant, it just slightly changes the DNA over time via neutral mutations.

What do you think I've been arguing this entire time?

I'm still trying to figure that one out. It's been mainly red herrings thus far and you haven't directly addressed the premise, you have only brought
up alternative ways it can happen, nothing that negates anything in the OP, and nothing that suggests there is a limit on how far mutations and traits
can add up.

Don't get me wrong here, I've learned a few cool things from our discussion, and I greatly appreciate that, but from here on out I'd prefer that we
focused on the premise, which is the artificial limitation on mutations / traits adding up proposed by evolution deniers.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you
have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ...
don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you
have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ...
don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you
have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ...
don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?

LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the
'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There
simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you
have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ...
don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?

LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the
'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There
simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.

But some of these posts in this thread, just seem to want to discredit, for lack of a better term, or maybe debunk evolution.

That's fine, but then you better tell me what your competing theory is if not evolution. Yes?

I questioned Google just now: "bona fide evidence" evolution

Didn't get a solid hit favoring evolution.

But what's the point. What are you saying? Are you saying that evolution is not a Valid theory? If so, what is your competing theory. Again, you
have to replace evolution with something, if not, then evolution is the best we have, flawed or not. Yes?

Science and technology have certainly progressed by leaps and bounds over the past couple hundred years. If Evolution _was_ a 'valid' theory ...
don't you think there would be "bona fide" evidence fit for presentation by now?

But what else am I to believe? What's your alternative? Why won't you tell me?

LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the
'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There
simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.

But isn't that the best theory we have?

Depends on who you want to offend. The argument for creation is just as valid ... right up until the moment evolutionary 'science' provides proof.
So far, no act of science has created life and no scientific endeavor has produced speciation. And remember ... 'Science' is repeatable.

I'm trying to keep things simple here, but all you are doing is bringing all kinds of other things into the conversation to make it more
confusing to folks that might not understand it on that level.

I know you are, and I think that's the problem. Evolution is not as simple as you are trying to make it. The devil is in the details.

^Those are from the wiki you linked on anagenesis plus the one on phyletic gradualism.
Please explain how that is ANY different than what I described specification as?

Yes, I know they are from the links I posted. And yes, you are right, they are NO DIFFERENT from what you described to be speciation, which is WHY I
posted them. It's the version of speciation you've been touting in this thread. Didn't you read my commentary where I included those links?

In short, anagenesis is a gradualistic concept of evolution, which says one species transforms into another within one lineage. It's not how most
think it happens. It's a competing hypothesis with punctuated equilibrium. Do you not think I know what I'm posting here?? Sheesh, I'm not trying
to trick you.

No it's not "precisely " what you've been describing. Did you not read up on this? I'm
posting links for a reason.

Sympatric speciation is the process through which new species evolve from a single
ancestral species while inhabiting the same geographic region.

It is exactly what you're talking about, and is the same as anagenetic evolution,
which you, just above, acknowledged is no different than what you've been saying.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Your link doesn't work.

This discussion is 75% red herrings and semantics. After all that, you have the nerve to suggest I am not contributing in any meaningful way to
the discussion? You still haven't answered my question, nor have you shown anything to counter anything related to the topic of the
thread.

Look, I'm only trying to have an honest discussion about evolution. My intention was never to unleash a flock of red herrings or to derail from the
discussion. I've been trying to address your question as best as possible. Mutations will not stop until the organism dies. Mutations happen in the
organism, not the population. A mutation has value when it affects the expression of a certain trait that confers an advantage or not. Identifying
this is not cut and dry since not all traits are visible to NS, nor do they express from just one gene.

I get the sense you think mutations equate to evolution. That's a yes and no answer. It's just not that simple.

It (epigentics) adds on to our understanding and shows a different way it can potentially happen, without genetic mutations.

It's disputable that it can even happen in mammals and it seems to be based on genetic markers rather than genetic mutations. Just because
this can happen, doesn't mean the mutations do not. Another red herring to add to the pile.

Genetic markers that can be inherited, correct. I never said anything about mutations not happening. That would be stupid.

You have given me alternative ways that speciation can happen, but you haven't disputed allopatric speciation, or addressed the question at
hand

But it's not clear if that's what you're talking about.

Sorry,

When you say things like :
"Evolution is about traits becoming dominant in a given population. This must happen before speciation can occur. Speciation has nothing to do with
individuals. It occurs when numerous dominant traits add up to the point where the organisms can no longer breed with the originals."
That's not allopatric.

I made that up? You are the one that nitpicked whether it's a single gene or group of genes, and the terminology involved.

You're right. My mistake, I forgot what I said. It's not nitpicking as I see it. It's important to any discussion about genetic mutations and their
effect on phenotypes.

ocean.si.edu...

^ This one has a nice video to compare the anatomy and features

That's the same link I posted earlier. I question it because it's not plausible.
I then posted this as an alternative hypothesis, which seems more
plausible, if you bothered to read it. The idea is there is more than one way to look at these grander scale speciating events. They're puzzles with
lots of missing pieces.

Migration? What exactly do you think causes animals to migrate? Change in the environment (seasonal change, temperature, food source change,
new competition, natural disasters, etc). Migration is a prime example of natural selection's influence.Migration is a prime example of natural
selection's influence.

Yes migration. It's a separate mechanism from NS. Your site lists it as an alternative way alleles become fixed in a population. This is basic stuff. And no, Natural selection is not
environmental changes themselves.

Genetic drift is still influenced by the environment and if a new trait emerges in that fashion it would indeed be influenced by natural
selection because it gives them an advantage which leads to it becoming dominant.

You asked another way a trait can become fixed (dominant?) in a population other than NS. Genetic drift is another way. It's different than NS. Read
the definitions.

from here on out I'd prefer that we focused on the premise, which is the artificial limitation on mutations / traits adding up proposed by
evolution deniers.

originally posted by: Snarl
LOL ... I'm a "real" scientist. I don't just make stuff up. The origin of species isn't my lane. No dog in this fight. Thing is the
'evolutionists' around here have gotten under my skin and I enjoy simply pointing out that their argument is exactly on-par with creation. There
simply is no proof of evolution no matter how obvious it may seem to them.

Oh please. You aren't scientist. You googled a catch phrase "bona fide" and came up empty. How scientific of you! Try searching for evidence of
evolution, and reading the peer reviewed research papers instead of silly catch phrases and maybe you'll learn something. No scientist would ever say
that evolution is on par with creation as far as validity goes. I thought your first post was satire, but I was wrong. But by all means, please
present an argument BASED ON THE TOPIC instead of just broad generalizations that have nothing to do with anything being discussed or the OP.

Depends on who you want to offend. The argument for creation is just as valid ... right up until the moment evolutionary 'science' provides proof. So
far, no act of science has created life and no scientific endeavor has produced speciation. And remember ... 'Science' is repeatable.

Clearly, you haven't even read the thread because references have been made that show speciation has been done in a lab and evolution has nothing to
do with creating life. Please stay on topic or find another thread to troll in. Flat out denial isn't an argument.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.